People might become better than ever via the use of technological upgrades such as brain changes to improve memory or reasoning skills, tweaks to biochemistry to boost resistance to the environment, or the development of whole new talents like becoming better at fun online games. Aside from living for extended periods, people’s looks may also be altered to make them more appealing or visually unique. It is becoming more apparent that humanity is approaching a “trans-human” period in which biology is seen as something that can be changed, based on one’s lifestyle desires rather than one’s health requirements. However, there are also doubts regarding how far civilization is willing to go in accepting these types of applications and what kinds of safety concerns they raise.
Why and How Are We Enhancing?
Human beings aspire to develop themselves for several compelling reasons that are worth considering throughout their lives. People have, in fact, long sought methods to improve their lives; some of the more well-known tactics for doing so include education, exercise, and eating a nutritious diet, among others. So, the issue is, what distinguishes these generally accepted methods of augmentation from others that create ethical concerns, such as the use of drugs or genetic manipulation? The following is an example of an argument that is often used to call into question the benefits of human enhancement: Important considerations in achieving one’s life goals are the means used to accomplish them. Another way of putting this is that if a person decides to use a technological shortcut to achieve a goal, such a choice might diminish the significance of the success. It is less significant to accomplish a feat in mountaineering via helicopter rather than by physically climbing the mountain. However, much of this may be motivated by a feeling of jealousy that these people are not around to see the growth of technology. Discrediting human advancement is akin to criticizing the fact that mountaineers were outmatched before developing satellite communications and mapping technology.
An ethical dilemma that has been raised in relation to some psychopharmacological medicines, such as anti-depressant medications, has been presented. According to this reasoning, certain types of augmentation may be ethically objectionable since, in essence, they convert the patient into someone else. Another reason to exercise care when it comes to human improvement is that it may limit a person’s future opportunities, thereby breaking the concept of keeping an “open future”. Some upgrades may encourage achievement in the early stages of life, but they may cause significant handicaps later in life. Examples include the use of medications that have short-term benefits (such as enhancing physical strength or sparking creativity) but which may also be associated with long-term health hazards (such as cardiovascular disease). The subject of governance is one of the most important ethical dilemmas regarding human augmentation. Making multiple upgrades accessible will require the involvement of a diverse group of decision-makers entrusted with formulating policies for their implementation and the establishment of social mechanisms to ensure that everyone can afford to make use of them.
While trying to figure out what would be an ethical decision for someone, it’s crucial to remember that any action may contradict the ethical standards of one practice while not violating the ethical expectations of another. It would also be naive to think that a university student, for example, could make broad judgments regarding their well-being without considering how those decisions would impact their capacity to work within any of these practices. Utilizing a cognitive enhancer to pass an exam, for example, may be against the rules of a university’s code of ethics, but it may be deemed an enrichment of his performance inside the symphony, where there is more uncertainty about whether such augmentation is ethical. These inconsistencies that characterize individual lives serve as a poignant reminder that formal ethical norms do not always control human life. Instead, individuals make judgments based on vague and sometimes poorly defined moral frameworks. Although they may not manage their actions or regulate social behavior, they may still serve to guide and organize social conduct.
To conclude, a variety of practical and ethical difficulties hinder many human breakthroughs from being widely used. As a consequence, those who feel that governing human advancements is as simple as regulating the healthcare system should exercise caution. To construct ethical standards, it is necessary first to determine the perspective from which the topic is being asked. If the matter is purely one of personal morality, professionals should stay out of it. Similarly, social reasons should take precedence over individual morality.
It is essential to establish some fundamental principles to guide human development ethics on all levels. Invest in research ideas as well as extensive independent consultation. Certain fundamental ethical practice standards may be derived from other sorts of medical intervention, such as fostering autonomy, concern for justice and welfare, and so on. Finally, the deployment of human advancements may need a global response rather than just local regulation. While such research has become a global leader in many countries, a comprehensive grasp of the global repercussions of human enhancement and an appropriate methodology remains elusive.